An anonymous reader writes: PayPal is suing Google and two former employees who now work there (Osama Bedier and Stephanie Tilenius), alleging trade secrets were stolen related to mobile payments aka Google Wallet.Link to Original Source

I live not too far from the Havasupai reservation and I have to tell you that these Indians are not playing with a full deck.

For example, they try to license the air space over the reservation, regardless of the fact that the FAA has told them many times that only the FAA may do that.

They (the Havasupai's) bend the laws to their own will and then when someone tries to go after them, they hide on their reservation where you can't serve them with any notices and even if you did, they would ignore them.

I have a separate account with debit card that stays zero. When I know I'm going to pay a bill online or use for some other purchase, I move just however much I need into that account to cover the purchases or debits. In this way, if some one gets ahold of the number, there isn't a lot they can do with it.

Also I don't have overdraft protection on that specific account so that again, if someone gets my number(s), there isn't much they can do about it. Sure I may get nailed for a hundred bucks - if they catch it at the right time - otherwise, they just don't get my money.

arizwebfoot writes: I live in a Condo in Flagstaff, Arizona which is both a college town (Northern Arizona University — current enrollment about 25,000 and a resort town (big ski hill). Total population is roughly 60,000 (estimated as of course the 2010 census numbers are not out yet). Within the past decade, approximately 10 percent of rental units were converted into Condos. Roughly 33 percent of all housing units are apartments and roughly another 20 percent are condos (privately owned). My physical address is condo B9 for building B condo 9. Not be be confused, but there are 40 units in my condo complex, units 1 — 40. The first eight are in building A,the next in B and so on for five buildings. Depending on who is doing what mailing, my address is either B9, unit 9, apt 9, or just 9. Some databases don't allow for any designator except apt. So I've gotten a census form for B9, apt 9, and 9. In big bold letter on the front of the Envelope it says "YOUR RESPONSE IS REQUIRED BY LAW". Now I know I've already submitted a form, however there will be many people who will resubmit with the alternate addresses.

In Flagstaff alone, if we assume that of the 53 percent of units, 10 percent respond another two times and if my math is right, then we probably will see an additional increase in population by somewhere in the 24 percentile range. Even if my math is wrong, we will see a significant increase in population that isn't warranted. Now multiply that by the current estimated US population of 308 million (www.census.gov/) and we could have around 60 million extra bodies that don't exist.

One more problem I've uncounted is that I have a post office box. If I didn't receive mail at my condo, how would I get counted? Would this become a person to person count? What if you couldn't reach my home because it's too remote, gated, or in some other way inaccessible?

I wonder if there are "other" confusions that the Census Bureau has not taken into account. Input is strongly encouraged.

grimwell writes: Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2010 04:03:37 -0800
to: cryptome[at]earthlink.net
subject: Update to Your Account, PP-910-103-553
From:
Dear John Young,
We have reviewed your PayPal Account, and due to the excessive risk involved, we would like to begin parting ways in a manner that is least disruptive to your business.Link to Original Source

Posted
by
CmdrTacoon Monday February 22, 2010 @01:24PM
from the tooting-his-horn dept.

jammag writes "Open source advocate Bruce Perens tells the inside story of the recently concluded Jacobsen v. Katzer court case, in which an open source developer was awarded $100,000. Perens, an expert witness in the case, details the blow by blow, including how developers need to make sure they're using the correct open source license for legal protection. The actual court ruling is almost like some kind of Hollywood movie ending for Open Source, with the judge unequivocally siding with the underfunded open source developer."